Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Cardiac output during exercise: a comparison of four methods


Siebenmann, C; Rasmussen, P; Sørensen, H; Zaar, M; Hvidtfeldt, M; Pichon, A; Secher, N H; Lundby, C (2015). Cardiac output during exercise: a comparison of four methods. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25(1):e20-e27.

Abstract

Several techniques assessing cardiac output (Q) during exercise are available. The extent to which the measurements obtained from each respective technique compares to one another, however, is unclear. We quantified Q simultaneously using four methods: the Fick method with blood obtained from the right atrium (Q(Fick-M)), Innocor (inert gas rebreathing; Q(Inn)), Physioflow (impedance cardiography; Q(Phys)), and Nexfin (pulse contour analysis; Q(Pulse)) in 12 male subjects during incremental cycling exercise to exhaustion in normoxia and hypoxia (FiO2  = 12%). While all four methods reported a progressive increase in Q with exercise intensity, the slopes of the Q/oxygen uptake (VO2) relationship differed by up to 50% between methods in both normoxia [4.9 ± 0.3, 3.9 ± 0.2, 6.0 ± 0.4, 4.8 ± 0.2 L/min per L/min (mean ± SE) for Q(Fick-M), Q(Inn), QP hys and Q(Pulse), respectively; P = 0.001] and hypoxia (7.2 ± 0.7, 4.9 ± 0.5, 6.4 ± 0.8 and 5.1 ± 0.4 L/min per L/min; P = 0.04). In hypoxia, the increase in the Q/VO2 slope was not detected by Nexfin. In normoxia, Q increases by 5-6 L/min per L/min increase in VO2, which is within the 95% confidence interval of the Q/VO2 slopes determined by the modified Fick method, Physioflow, and Nexfin apparatus while Innocor provided a lower value, potentially reflecting recirculation of the test gas into the pulmonary circulation. Thus, determination of Q during exercise depends significantly on the applied method.

Abstract

Several techniques assessing cardiac output (Q) during exercise are available. The extent to which the measurements obtained from each respective technique compares to one another, however, is unclear. We quantified Q simultaneously using four methods: the Fick method with blood obtained from the right atrium (Q(Fick-M)), Innocor (inert gas rebreathing; Q(Inn)), Physioflow (impedance cardiography; Q(Phys)), and Nexfin (pulse contour analysis; Q(Pulse)) in 12 male subjects during incremental cycling exercise to exhaustion in normoxia and hypoxia (FiO2  = 12%). While all four methods reported a progressive increase in Q with exercise intensity, the slopes of the Q/oxygen uptake (VO2) relationship differed by up to 50% between methods in both normoxia [4.9 ± 0.3, 3.9 ± 0.2, 6.0 ± 0.4, 4.8 ± 0.2 L/min per L/min (mean ± SE) for Q(Fick-M), Q(Inn), QP hys and Q(Pulse), respectively; P = 0.001] and hypoxia (7.2 ± 0.7, 4.9 ± 0.5, 6.4 ± 0.8 and 5.1 ± 0.4 L/min per L/min; P = 0.04). In hypoxia, the increase in the Q/VO2 slope was not detected by Nexfin. In normoxia, Q increases by 5-6 L/min per L/min increase in VO2, which is within the 95% confidence interval of the Q/VO2 slopes determined by the modified Fick method, Physioflow, and Nexfin apparatus while Innocor provided a lower value, potentially reflecting recirculation of the test gas into the pulmonary circulation. Thus, determination of Q during exercise depends significantly on the applied method.

Statistics

Citations

12 citations in Web of Science®
14 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

0 downloads since deposited on 23 Feb 2016
0 downloads since 12 months

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Institute of Physiology
07 Faculty of Science > Institute of Physiology

04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Integrative Human Physiology
Dewey Decimal Classification:570 Life sciences; biology
610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:February 2015
Deposited On:23 Feb 2016 17:16
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 20:09
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:0905-7188
Funders:Zürich Center for Integrative Human Physiology (ZIHP)
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12201
PubMed ID:24646113

Download

Content: Published Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 274kB
View at publisher